Getting rid of the Electoral College

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "And yet you tell us again and again you don't watch Maddow..."

It's like those liberals who NEVER listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show regularly calling him a "racist," isn't it? (Except that I can actually call-up clips from Rachel Maddow's MSNBC shows on you-tube proving my point!)

JawnKarTurr writes: "The electoral college let's all Americans have a voice in their government. Funny how people who claim to represent everyone are bothered by this concept."

When liberal Democrats lose elections, they begin turning against our U.S. Constitution and the protections it affords us. Suddenly they begin looking favorably towards things like ISLAM, which is both anti-American & anti-Judeo-Christian, and they'll even begin electing Muslims to our U.S. House of Representatives!

KeithD writes: "You obviously are clueless about the concept of every person an equal vote. I'm not a bit surprised."

Seriously, Keith? You're now in favor of voter-photo-ID laws? You DO realize that the higher-ups in the Democratic Party oppose those?

YDB95 writes (about the Electoral College): "No, it isn't. It's a mechanism for electing the president, nothing more."

And it's successfully worked from Washington all the way to Trump, including putting Bill Clinton & Barack Obama in the White House!

"The people who are pushing voter ID laws are, however, opposed to providing that help - and in fact are making it more difficult for people to get a valid ID."

If that above-cited bit of nonsense was true then Democrats would be passing laws trying to make it easier for citizens to acquire a valid photo-ID, but that's NOT what they're doing, is it? No, the left wants to BLOCK all voter-photo-ID laws so that people who shouldn't be voting in our elections continue to do so!

 

[icanhelp1]

YDB95 writes: "And yet you tell us again and again you don't watch Maddow..."

It's like those liberals who NEVER listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show regularly calling him a "racist," isn't it? (Except that I can actually call-up clips from Rachel Maddow's MSNBC shows on you-tube proving my point!)

JawnKarTurr writes: "The electoral college let's all Americans have a voice in their government. Funny how people who claim to represent everyone are bothered by this concept."

When liberal Democrats lose elections, they begin turning against our U.S. Constitution and the protections it affords us. Suddenly they begin looking favorably towards things like ISLAM, which is both anti-American & anti-Judeo-Christian, and they'll even begin electing Muslims to our U.S. House of Representatives!

KeithD writes: "You obviously are clueless about the concept of every person an equal vote. I'm not a bit surprised."

Seriously, Keith? You're now in favor of voter-photo-ID laws? You DO realize that the higher-ups in the Democratic Party oppose those?

YDB95 writes (about the Electoral College): "No, it isn't. It's a mechanism for electing the president, nothing more."

And it's successfully worked from Washington all the way to Trump, including putting Bill Clinton & Barack Obama in the White House!

"The people who are pushing voter ID laws are, however, opposed to providing that help - and in fact are making it more difficult for people to get a valid ID."

If that above-cited bit of nonsense was true then Democrats would be passing laws trying to make it easier for citizens to acquire a valid photo-ID, but that's NOT what they're doing, is it? No, the left wants to BLOCK all voter-photo-ID laws so that people who shouldn't be voting in our elections continue to do so!

In my humble opinion I think converting to a popular vote would have some very interesting unintended consequences. Back in the day ( 1800 and up to early 1900's) the electoral college was also a way for smaller states to have a voice against the more powerful slave states like Virginia, complicated and not going there. Read the federalist papers. That problem doesn't exist today.

I believe that the electoral system is the root problem of red against blue and the divisiveness we suffer today. I wonder how many red voters don't show because their state is predominately blue and feel their vote doesn't mean anything and vise versa. The 50 largest cities only carry 15% of the electorate which leaves 85% in all other areas within the country up for grabs. I also believe the split option would be even worse because of red/blue Gerrymandering districts for political gain would again render voters irrelevant based on blue or red dominance. Red would be red and blue would be blue and we're back to square one. The states would lose the winner take all option which would mean close states red or blue would also lose that advantage. I think that could lead to a successful 3rd party candidate. I also think campaign strategies would have to change as well.

I'm really tired of all the banter being about 5 or 6 swing states get all the attention every election. Or that 35 to 40 swing districts could determine an election. I believe the present system leaves voters out of the loop. I don't believe we can truly assess what the popular vote really means right now and until we can unleash the electorate completely we'll never really know.

In my humble opinion in order for a popular vote to be fair and balanced the border issue has to be solved. Undocumented migrants has to stop completely and we have to revert back to legal immigration and proper vetting for citizenship. Just a thought; could you imagine a congress being gray instead of red or blue, bills being passed based on merit rather than party affiliation. I don't know how we could fix the house since the districts wouldn't have the clout they use to have being a single college vote.

While we're fixing the electoral college why don't we put term limits on these career politicians and rotate them out and open up for new blood. I can't take another Byrd, Pelosi, Kenedy, Schumer, Grassley and many others.

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "And yet you tell us again and again you don't watch Maddow..."

It's like those liberals who NEVER listen to Rush Limbaugh's radio show regularly calling him a "racist," isn't it? (Except that I can actually call-up clips from Rachel Maddow's MSNBC shows on you-tube proving my point!)

Rush has thousands of racist comments to his credit (off the top of my head, there's "The NAACP [or was it "NAALCP?] ought to have riot rehearsals"), and yes, there are progressive organizations that monitor his show. [/quote]

JawnKarTurr writes: "The electoral college let's all Americans have a voice in their government. Funny how people who claim to represent everyone are bothered by this concept."

When liberal Democrats lose elections, they begin turning against our U.S. Constitution and the protections it affords us. Suddenly they begin looking favorably towards things like ISLAM, which is both anti-American & anti-Judeo-Christian, and they'll even begin electing Muslims to our U.S. House of Representatives!

Please note not everyone who disagrees with me (or any other progressive) feels the need to bash Islam. Just sayin'.

"The people who are pushing voter ID laws are, however, opposed to providing that help - and in fact are making it more difficult for people to get a valid ID."

If that above-cited bit of nonsense was true then Democrats would be passing laws trying to make it easier for citizens to acquire a valid photo-ID, but that's NOT what they're doing, is it? No, the left wants to BLOCK all voter-photo-ID laws so that people who shouldn't be voting in our elections continue to do so!

Again, it's a solution in search of a problem. There is NO evidence whatsoever that illegal immigrants are voting in any substantial numbers, and no amount of your screaming about the margin in California in 2016 will change that, nor will it convince anyone here who doesn't already agree with you. At least find some other line of attack, would you?

While we're fixing the electoral college why don't we put term limits on these career politicians and rotate them out and open up for new blood. I can't take another Byrd, Pelosi, Kenedy, Schumer, Grassley and many others.

If I'm happy with my senator's performance, I'd like the option of sending him or her back to DC. Besides, institutional knowledge is important.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Rush has thousands of racist comments to his credit..."

That's complete nonsense. You've obviously NEVER listened to Rush's program, and can't point to anything that he's ever said that's even remotely racist. Also, Rush has a much bigger audience than your hero, Rachel Maddow (whom you also never listen to!)

"Please note not everyone who disagrees with me (or any other progressive) feels the need to bash Islam. Just sayin'."

Liberal Democrats prefer bashing Christianity - or Israel - they LOVE bashing Israel! But Islam? NO WAY! That would be racist!

"There is NO evidence whatsoever that illegal immigrants are voting in any substantial numbers..."

Sure there is - tons of it! But illegals voting in American elections benefits the Democratic Party, and so liberals insist that while it's perfectly acceptable to violate our nation's immigration laws, the same people regularly breaking that law would NEVER consciously violate our nation's election laws, right? Just because they don't respect the one law, DOESN'T mean that they don't hold our election laws sacred, correct?

"Besides, institutional knowledge is important."

TRANSLATION: Working the system - cashing in - using a career in politics to become a multi-millionaire... look at how wealthy Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, and the Clintons have all become! And they all got rich without ANY understanding of basic economics!

 

[icanhelp1]

Rush has thousands of racist comments to his credit (off the top of my head, there's "The NAACP [or was it "NAALCP?] ought to have riot rehearsals"), and yes, there are progressive organizations that monitor his show.

Please note not everyone who disagrees with me (or any other progressive) feels the need to bash Islam. Just sayin'.



Again, it's a solution in search of a problem. There is NO evidence whatsoever that illegal immigrants are voting in any substantial numbers, and no amount of your screaming about the margin in California in 2016 will change that, nor will it convince anyone here who doesn't already agree with you. At least find some other line of attack, would you?



If I'm happy with my senator's performance, I'd like the option of sending him or her back to DC. Besides, institutional knowledge is important.[/QUOTE]


I can't argue against institutional knowledge as being a positive but I argue that institutional knowledge does not always lead to efficient or effective leadership. It's one thing to know things it's another to use it for positive change. Everyone likes who they voted for but when a body has a 21% approval rating I find the synergies aren't working. Sound and vibrant leadership comes with change. If that wasn't true than presidents would be allowed more than 2 terms. As critical as the office of the president is, we as a people, find it a threat to our republic to continue to vote in the same individual for more than two terms. I also believe that 2 or 3 terms for any office is sufficient, after that, complacency and a sense of entitlement set in. I think politicians spend too much time campaigning for they're next election than doing the kings business. We need access to new ideas, people to reach across the other side. What we have now are politicians entrenched in their corners and viewing the other side as the enemy rather than fellow americans.I feel they view their own political survival as more important than the needs of the american people.

 

[YDB95]

I can't argue against institutional knowledge as being a positive but I argue that institutional knowledge does not always lead to efficient or effective leadership. It's one thing to know things it's another to use it for positive change. Everyone likes who they voted for but when a body has a 21% approval rating I find the synergies aren't working. Sound and vibrant leadership comes with change. If that wasn't true than presidents would be allowed more than 2 terms. As critical as the office of the president is, we as a people, find it a threat to our republic to continue to vote in the same individual for more than two terms.

Eh, not really. The two-term limit was instituted because the Republicans didn't want to risk another Democratic president being as popular as FDR was (amusingly, the first incumbent president to whom the limit applied was Eisenhower, who was popular enough that he might well have won a third term. Whoops.) It wasn't done out of any sense of duty to the republic.

I also believe that 2 or 3 terms for any office is sufficient, after that, complacency and a sense of entitlement set in. I think politicians spend too much time campaigning for they're next election than doing the kings business.

The king's business?
I would, however, agree that what you're getting at here is a strong argument in favor of campaign finance reform.

We need access to new ideas, people to reach across the other side.

You almost never see that with freshmen in Congress. If anything, they tend to be among the most stridently partisan. Why? In part at least, because they don't yet appreciate how Washington works. Another reason is wave elections are increasingly common, meaning a substantial portion of each new class of senators and representatives rode into office on a wave of resentment for the other party. If anything, term limits would probably make that worse.

What we have now are politicians entrenched in their corners and viewing the other side as the enemy rather than fellow americans.I feel they view their own political survival as more important than the needs of the american people.

If we didn't have term limits on the presidency, Obama could have run for a third term - and if anything, he was far too committed to the idea that we all needed to work together (a great idea in principle, but in reality it just wasn't going to happen in light of what the Republicans thought of him). Then we likely wouldn't have ended up with the most viciously hateful president we've had since quite possibly ever.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "Eh, not really. The two-term limit was instituted because the Republicans didn't want to risk another Democratic president being as popular as FDR was (amusingly, the first incumbent president to whom the limit applied was Eisenhower, who was popular enough that he might well have won a third term. Whoops.) It wasn't done out of any sense of duty to the republic."

Yes, Ike could very likely have won a third-term in 1960 - and so could Ronald Reagan in 1988. But I don't think that anybody (Republican or Democrat) wanted to see another president serving for life. FDR was so weak & sick during his 4th & final term that he didn't even stay alive for three months of it, leaving his vice-president (Harry Truman) to wrap-up the Second World War.

"You almost never see that with freshmen in Congress. If anything, they tend to be among the most stridently partisan. Why? In part at least, because they don't yet appreciate how Washington works. Another reason is wave elections are increasingly common, meaning a substantial portion of each new class of senators and representatives rode into office on a wave of resentment for the other party. If anything, term limits would probably make that worse."

You're making some valid points. Yes, freshman congressmen tend to be stridently partisan, which is usually because they were elected to deal with specific problems & concerns. But after they've gotten comfortable in Washington, they tend to begin playing "the game" with everybody else, meaning that they become mostly concerned with remaining in government and continuing to get re-elected. I would much rather keep seeing "fresh blood" injected into the capital, without having to deal with the complacency of professional politicians calling most of the shots.

"If we didn't have term limits on the presidency, Obama could have run for a third term..."

And he would have LOST - let's not forget that, when Barack Obama ran for re-election in 2012, he ended up winning fewer states, fewer electoral votes, and over three-&-a-half million FEWER populat votes! He was NOT growing more popular - quite the REVERSE! Yes, he could still defeat weak G.O.P. candidates like McCain & Romney, but Trump would very likely have kicked his butt!

 

[YDB95]

"If we didn't have term limits on the presidency, Obama could have run for a third term..."

And he would have LOST - let's not forget that, when Barack Obama ran for re-election in 2012, he ended up winning fewer states, fewer electoral votes, and over three-&-a-half million FEWER populat votes!

Which has absolutely fuck-all to do with what might have happened in 2016. You said above that Reagan could have won a third term - perhaps, but guess what? Obama was more popular in 2016 than Reagan was in 1988.

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "...but guess what? Obama was more popular in 2016 than Reagan was in 1988."

Here are the FACTS regarding Reagan & Obama's changing popularity after four years in the White House:

43,903,230 - Reagan's 1980 popular vote total
54,455,472 - Reagan's 1984 popular vote total
+10,552,242 - Reagan's popular vote INCREASE!

50.75% - Reagan's percent of the 1980 popular vote
58.77% - Reagan's percent of the 1984 popular vote
+8.02% - Reagan's INCREASE in the popular vote percentage

489 - Reagan's 1980 electoral vote total
525 - Reagan's 1984 electoral vote total
+36 - Reagan's INCREASE in electoral votes!

69,499,428 - Obama's 2008 popular vote total
65,918,507 - Obama's 2012 popular vote total
-3,580,921 - Obama's popular vote DECREASE!

52.86% - Obama's percentage of the 2008 popular vote
51.01% - Obama's percentage of the 2012 popular vote
-1.85% - Obama's DECREASE in the popular vote percentage

365 - Obama's 2008 electoral vote total
332 - Obama's 2012 electoral vote total
-33 - Obama's DECREASE in electoral votes!

Source material: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

 

[phrodeau]

YDB95 writes: "...but guess what? Obama was more popular in 2016 than Reagan was in 1988."

Here are the FACTS regarding Reagan & Obama's changing popularity after four years in the White House:

43,903,230 - Reagan's 1980 popular vote total
54,455,472 - Reagan's 1984 popular vote total
+10,552,242 - Reagan's popular vote INCREASE!

50.75% - Reagan's percent of the 1980 popular vote
58.77% - Reagan's percent of the 1984 popular vote
+8.02% - Reagan's INCREASE in the popular vote percentage

489 - Reagan's 1980 electoral vote total
525 - Reagan's 1984 electoral vote total
+36 - Reagan's INCREASE in electoral votes!

69,499,428 - Obama's 2008 popular vote total
65,918,507 - Obama's 2012 popular vote total
-3,580,921 - Obama's popular vote DECREASE!

52.86% - Obama's percentage of the 2008 popular vote
51.01% - Obama's percentage of the 2012 popular vote
-1.85% - Obama's DECREASE in the popular vote percentage

365 - Obama's 2008 electoral vote total
332 - Obama's 2012 electoral vote total
-33 - Obama's DECREASE in electoral votes!

Source material: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

I don’t see anything about 1988 or 2016 there.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "I don’t see anything about 1988 or 2016 there."

Well, if you study the TRENDS, phrodeau, it would appear that while President Reagan's popularity had risen sharply after four years in office, Barack Obama's popularity had taken a steep decline instead!

In 1988, President Reagan campaigned entensively for his V.P. (George H.W. Bush), who won easily over his Democratic Party opponent (Michael Dukakis), becoming the first incumbent vice president to win the White House since Martin Van Buren accomplished that feat in 1836 (152 years earlier!)

In 2016, Barack & Michelle Obama both campaigned extensively for Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, with President Obama even touting her as: "the most qualified candidate ever to run for president, including me!" But Hillary lost anyway. I think she might have done better in a few of those vital swing states if the Obama's had STAYED AWAY entirely!

 

[Boxlicker101]

YDB95 writes: "...but guess what? Obama was more popular in 2016 than Reagan was in 1988."

Here are the FACTS regarding Reagan & Obama's changing popularity after four years in the White House:

43,903,230 - Reagan's 1980 popular vote total
54,455,472 - Reagan's 1984 popular vote total
+10,552,242 - Reagan's popular vote INCREASE!

50.75% - Reagan's percent of the 1980 popular vote
58.77% - Reagan's percent of the 1984 popular vote
+8.02% - Reagan's INCREASE in the popular vote percentage

489 - Reagan's 1980 electoral vote total
525 - Reagan's 1984 electoral vote total
+36 - Reagan's INCREASE in electoral votes!

69,499,428 - Obama's 2008 popular vote total
65,918,507 - Obama's 2012 popular vote total
-3,580,921 - Obama's popular vote DECREASE!

52.86% - Obama's percentage of the 2008 popular vote
51.01% - Obama's percentage of the 2012 popular vote
-1.85% - Obama's DECREASE in the popular vote percentage

365 - Obama's 2008 electoral vote total
332 - Obama's 2012 electoral vote total
-33 - Obama's DECREASE in electoral votes!

Source material: https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/

Also worth mentioning is the fact that The Big O, in 2008, ran against the popular was hero, John McCain, and against former gov. Mitt Romney in 2012.

 

[phrodeau]

phrodeau writes: "I don’t see anything about 1988 or 2016 there."

Well, if you study the TRENDS, phrodeau, it would appear that while President Reagan's popularity had risen sharply after four years in office, Barack Obama's popularity had taken a steep decline instead!

In 1988, President Reagan campaigned entensively for his V.P. (George H.W. Bush), who won easily over his Democratic Party opponent (Michael Dukakis), becoming the first incumbent vice president to win the White House since Martin Van Buren accomplished that feat in 1836 (152 years earlier!)

In 2016, Barack & Michelle Obama both campaigned extensively for Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton, with President Obama even touting her as: "the most qualified candidate ever to run for president, including me!" But Hillary lost anyway. I think she might have done better in a few of those vital swing states if the Obama's had STAYED AWAY entirely!

Reagan's popularity didn't rise sharply by any measure until well after he had left office.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Reagan's popularity didn't rise sharply by any measure until well after he had left office."

I can't agree with your assessment, phrodeau!

In 1980, Reagan completely landslided incumbent President Jimmy Carter, winning 44-states to Carter's six, with the sitting president winning an enormously disappointing 41.01% of the popular vote to Reagan's 50.75%.

But as lopsided as that victory was, it was to get MUCH WORSE for the Democratic Party just four-years later, when Reagan completely DESTROYED the candidacy of Carter's vice-president, Walter Mondale. This time, Reagan captured FORTY-NINE of the fifty-states, worth a whopping 525 electoral votes (an all-time record), along with 58.77% of the popular vote (no presidential candidate has reached that number since!)

It really doesn't get much more popular than that!

 

[phrodeau]

https://news.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx

June 7, 2004

Ronald Reagan, the nation's 40th president, became one of the nation's most revered public figures in recent years, a distinct turnabout from the more routinely average ratings he received while he served in office between 1981 and 1989. Reagan's job approval ratings in his first years in office were hurt by the bad economy, and the last years of his administration were marred by the negative fallout from what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair. Nevertheless, Americans have more recently upgraded their retrospective approval of the job he did as president, and now routinely think of Reagan as one of the nation's more outstanding presidents.

 

[Dumpington]

phrodeau writes: "Ronald Reagan, the nation's 40th president, became one of the nation's most revered public figures in recent years, a distinct turnabout from the more routinely average ratings he received while he served in office between 1981 and 1989."

I will readily agree with you that Reagan is even MORE popular today than he was when he was president - and that's saying a LOT, because in 1984 Reagan set the ALL-TIME-RECORD for winning the most electoral votes (525) ever won by any American president!

"Reagan's job approval ratings in his first years in office were hurt by the bad economy, and the last years of his administration were marred by the negative fallout from what came to be known as the Iran-Contra affair."

Which once again shows just how popular Reagan was while STILL president, phrodeau - the guy was re-elected in 1984 with 58.77% of the popular vote, which is better than anything achieved by Presidents Carter, Bush-41, Clinton, Bush-43, Obama, or Trump! And then, in 1988, he becomes the first president in office since Andrew Jackson to see his own vice president elected immediately after him!

"Nevertheless, Americans have more recently upgraded their retrospective approval of the job he did as president, and now routinely think of Reagan as one of the nation's more outstanding presidents."

Again, I'm not arguing with you - I think that Ronald Reagan was the BEST American president of the entire 20th-century, who's policies ended-up winning the Cold War, destroying both the Soviet Union & the Berlin Wall in the process!

 

[icanhelp1]

Eh, not really. The two-term limit was instituted because the Republicans didn't want to risk another Democratic president being as popular as FDR was (amusingly, the first incumbent president to whom the limit applied was Eisenhower, who was popular enough that he might well have won a third term. Whoops.) It wasn't done out of any sense of duty to the republic.



The king's business?
I would, however, agree that what you're getting at here is a strong argument in favor of campaign finance reform.



You almost never see that with freshmen in Congress. If anything, they tend to be among the most stridently partisan. Why? In part at least, because they don't yet appreciate how Washington works. Another reason is wave elections are increasingly common, meaning a substantial portion of each new class of senators and representatives rode into office on a wave of resentment for the other party. If anything, term limits would probably make that worse.


If we didn't have term limits on the presidency, Obama could have run for a third term - and if anything, he was far too committed to the idea that we all needed to work together (a great idea in principle, but in reality it just wasn't going to happen in light of what the Republicans thought of him). Then we likely wouldn't have ended up with the most viciously hateful president we've had since quite possibly ever.

I disagree with your assessment. I believe the majority of democratic seats won in the last election want to get things done with the exception of the big three, AOC, IO, RT. They ( the majority ) want to get passed the Mueller report and move on. I also disagree with your assessment on freshman congressmen. Most come to office with a background in politics or law. They may need a little exposure to the swamp to get going but after 12 years it's time to move on. This is not about what you think this is about what I believe. I believe that change for the most part is good. Some of our founders at first wanted to appoint the president for life but Washington refused a third term as a safeguard against the same type of rule as the British crown. After Roosevelt 3rd term and beginning of 4th term the 22nd amendment was ratified with strong republican favor pushed by Dewey. You're a history expert so I'm not writing a 10 page narrative to argue you. I'm sure you get the spirit of my argument. Familiarity breeds contempt. Being a Trump hater doesn't make you better. At one time holding office was a noble calling, today its a swill pit filled with contempt and partisan hatred. We have a border crisis and we ignore it. Border security is not racist. Spending hard earned taxes on people who don't belong here is wrong and to say that is not racist. New York city is 119 billion dollars in debt and yet we put 27 million dollars aside for educating illegal migrants. That's our money, for my kids, your kids. WTF!!!

 

[YDB95]

phrodeau writes: "I don’t see anything about 1988 or 2016 there."

Well, if you study the TRENDS, phrodeau, it would appear that while President Reagan's popularity had risen sharply after four years in office, Barack Obama's popularity had taken a steep decline instead!

First of all, we were talking about the end of their respective second terms. Secondly, election margins have nothing to do with how popular a president may or may not be a few years later. LBJ and Nixon both won with greater shares of the popular vote than Reagan did, and were extremely unpopular by the time they left office. While Reagan wasn't that unpopular in 1988, his numbers were mediocre. (And yes, they have risen since then - but that is at least partly because he's been the beneficiary of a multimillion dollar PR campaign, the Reagan Legacy Project. The man had a lot of very rich friends, whom his policies helped make even richer.)

Also worth mentioning is the fact that The Big O, in 2008, ran against the popular was hero, John McCain, and against former gov. Mitt Romney in 2012.

McCain was a war hero, but he was also highly controversial among Republicans, many of whom refused to even acknowledge that he was a member of their party.

I disagree with your assessment. I believe the majority of democratic seats won in the last election want to get things done with the exception of the big three, AOC, IO, RT.

What makes you think they don't want to get things done?

At one time holding office was a noble calling, today its a swill pit filled with contempt and partisan hatred.

Since you called me a history expert (thank you, by the way), I hope you'll understand when I say this is a classic historical fallacy. We tend to believe there was a time - usually a generation or two before our own - when politics was a clean business and the opposing parties respected one another. It's a nice idea, but it just isn't true. Politics has always been nasty, and the truth is, negative campaigning usually works. I wish it didn't, but it does.

We have a border crisis and we ignore it. Border security is not racist.

Calling Mexicans "rapists and drug dealers" certainly is, though.

Spending hard earned taxes on people who don't belong here is wrong and to say that is not racist.

Illegal immigrants who work usually pay more in taxes than they take. Assuming they come here just to get handouts is - again - racist.

New York city is 119 billion dollars in debt and yet we put 27 million dollars aside for educating illegal migrants. That's our money, for my kids, your kids. WTF!!!

Then surely you support tax reform like Elizabeth Warren is proposing, and I'm sure you opposed Trump's giveaways to the rich?

 

[Dumpington]

YDB95 writes: "LBJ and Nixon both won with greater shares of the popular vote than Reagan did, and were extremely unpopular by the time they left office."

Actually, Reagan's 1984 landslide win was very close to matching what happened to both LBJ & Nixon regarding the popular vote, and Reagan's Electoral College landslide was the largest in American history!

As LBJ's presidency winded-down, his V.P. (Hubert Humphrey) would narrowly lose in '68 to Richard Nixon, just as Nixon's 2nd V.P. (Gerald Ford) narrowly lost in '76 to Jimmy Carter - both of those losses very likely tied to the "extreme unpopularity" of the aforementioned presidents.

But that DIDN'T happen to Reagan - HE was so popular in 1988 that he helped his own V.P. (George H.W. Bush) win a landslide of his OWN, crushing Democrat Mike Dukakis, 426-111 in the electoral college! (That's also the LAST TIME that an elected-president has won over 400 electoral votes!)

"McCain was a war hero, but he was also highly controversial among Republicans, many of whom refused to even acknowledge that he was a member of their party."

John McCain's problem is that he wanted the liberal media to LIKE him (which they DID when he attacked President George W. Bush, and later President Trump!) But after McCain won the 2008 G.O.P. nomination, he was dumbfounded when the liberal media (e.g. The New York Times) tore him apart to get Barack Obama elected president instead! In that sense, McCain was a bit of a naive political simpleton!

(on what constitutes racism): "Calling Mexicans "rapists and drug dealers" certainly is, though."

Unless, or course, there really ARE drug-dealers & rapists illegally entering our country from Mexico, who then commit those exact same crimes here in the United States! I mean, how is it racist to point out illegal behavior committed by people her illegally?

"Illegal immigrants who work usually pay more in taxes than they take. Assuming they come here just to get handouts is - again - racist."

It's NOT racist to arrest and deport somebody who has entered our nation illegally, no matter how much in taxes they have allegedly paid - they are here illegally - and yes, some illegals have successfully tapped into our entitlement system, receiving food stamps, health care, & education all paid for by AMERICAN taxpayers intended for the use of other Americans!

"I'm sure you opposed Trump's giveaways to the rich?"

Allowing people to keep more of their own money that they've earned isn't exactly a "giveaway" - you're confusing that term with things like food stamps & welfare payments (which are, in fact, "giveaways!")

 

[icanhelp1]

First of all, we were talking about the end of their respective second terms. Secondly, election margins have nothing to do with how popular a president may or may not be a few years later. LBJ and Nixon both won with greater shares of the popular vote than Reagan did, and were extremely unpopular by the time they left office. While Reagan wasn't that unpopular in 1988, his numbers were mediocre. (And yes, they have risen since then - but that is at least partly because he's been the beneficiary of a multimillion dollar PR campaign, the Reagan Legacy Project. The man had a lot of very rich friends, whom his policies helped make even richer.)



McCain was a war hero, but he was also highly controversial among Republicans, many of whom refused to even acknowledge that he was a member of their party.



What makes you think they don't want to get things done?



Since you called me a history expert (thank you, by the way), I hope you'll understand when I say this is a classic historical fallacy. We tend to believe there was a time - usually a generation or two before our own - when politics was a clean business and the opposing parties respected one another. It's a nice idea, but it just isn't true. Politics has always been nasty, and the truth is, negative campaigning usually works. I wish it didn't, but it does.


Calling Mexicans "rapists and drug dealers" certainly is, though.



Illegal immigrants who work usually pay more in taxes than they take. Assuming they come here just to get handouts is - again - racist.



Then surely you support tax reform like Elizabeth Warren is proposing, and I'm sure you opposed Trump's giveaways to the rich?

I support spending reform. Illegal migrants consume more than they contribute. It's impossible to quantify how much because we have no idea of who's here and how many. If 100 are here illegally and only ten pay taxes then we as americans make up the difference. I don't know why you conflate my conversation with calling all Mexicans rapist and drug dealers, most americans don't feel that way and I find that offensive when you direct that at me.

As far as politics always being dirty, I agree, however my point is our government is paralyzed today more than ever with hatred towards each other.

Liz Warren is not about tax reform she's about socialism. We are 22 trillion dollars in debt, so when I hear single payer system, eliminate college debt, child care for all, reparations for past sins, wealth distribution, it's all pie in the sky aimed at getting liberal votes. She can't do any of that stuff, only congress can do it, all she can do is lobby and sign the bill into law ( if president of course ).

Negative campaigning puts the voting electorate in a position of voting for the least offensive, you know, hold your nose while in the ballot box. Biden going after Anita Hill now, in an attempt to apologize is just despicable, what a phony!!!!!! Please spare me the Trump bashing, I get it!

I agree with eliminating the electoral college, I believe there would be some very interesting and unintended results and does pander to each individual voter. Nothing can change my mind on term limits. Maybe a populous vote would eliminate red on blue.

As far as the banking crisis being a republican issue, well, I'm sure you understand it's complexities so here are my bullet points

1. The Gramm Rudman act 1985 ( deregulation of banks and the use of derivatives as far back as the 1970's. ) Bipartisan support.

2. Elimination of the Glass Steagall act 1999, ( Clinton ( Gramm, Leach, Bliley act ) very complex, allowing commercial banks to do business with investment banks to be more competitive globally..

3. Boiler rooms, creation of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages along with the use of derivatives and CDRs, banking greed!!. Congress putting pressure on banks to ease qualification procedures on mortgages ( Barney Franks MA ) which led to predatory lending practices.

4. The DOT COM bust and the crash of the NASDAQ

5. 911

 

[YDB95]

YDB95 writes: "LBJ and Nixon both won with greater shares of the popular vote than Reagan did, and were extremely unpopular by the time they left office."

Actually, Reagan's 1984 landslide win was very close to matching what happened to both LBJ & Nixon regarding the popular vote, and Reagan's Electoral College landslide was the largest in American history!

Close, yes, but that's beside the point.

But that DIDN'T happen to Reagan - HE was so popular in 1988 that he helped his own V.P. (George H.W. Bush) win a landslide of his OWN, crushing Democrat Mike Dukakis, 426-111 in the electoral college! (That's also the LAST TIME that an elected-president has won over 400 electoral votes!)

That had a lot more to do with Dukakis being a wimp than with Reagan's popularity (which was nothing to write home about in 1988).

"McCain was a war hero, but he was also highly controversial among Republicans, many of whom refused to even acknowledge that he was a member of their party."

John McCain's problem is that he wanted the liberal media to LIKE him (which they DID when he attacked President George W. Bush, and later President Trump!) But after McCain won the 2008 G.O.P. nomination, he was dumbfounded when the liberal media (e.g. The New York Times) tore him apart to get Barack Obama elected president instead! In that sense, McCain was a bit of a naive political simpleton!

McCain was always a darling of the media. That's why he got away with rebranding himself as a maverick when really he was a fairly down the line conservative vote.

And it's funny how the party that bills itself as a bulwark of "personal responsibility" always blames everyone but themselves when they lose.

(on what constitutes racism): "Calling Mexicans "rapists and drug dealers" certainly is, though."

Unless, or course, there really ARE drug-dealers & rapists illegally entering our country from Mexico, who then commit those exact same crimes here in the United States! I mean, how is it racist to point out illegal behavior committed by people her illegally?

It isn't. But that's not what Trump did.

"Illegal immigrants who work usually pay more in taxes than they take. Assuming they come here just to get handouts is - again - racist."

It's NOT racist to arrest and deport somebody who has entered our nation illegally, no matter how much in taxes they have allegedly paid - they are here illegally

That much is true. But again, that's nowhere near an accurate reflection of what Trump did that day on his golden escalator, nor what he has been doing almost every day since then.

"I'm sure you opposed Trump's giveaways to the rich?"

Allowing people to keep more of their own money that they've earned isn't exactly a "giveaway" - you're confusing that term with things like food stamps & welfare payments (which are, in fact, "giveaways!")

Including the six times Trump got bailed out when he declared bankruptcy? You've got a point there - that was certainly a giveaway to someone who didn't deserve it.

I support spending reform.

Me too. We can start by cutting military bloat, and spend that on badly needed infrastructure and safety net programs instead.

Illegal migrants consume more than they contribute. It's impossible to quantify how much because we have no idea of who's here and how many.

By some measures, yes. On the other hand, we've seen the impact it has on, for example, the agricultural sector when we crack down on illegal immigration: suddenly there's no one willing to pick those crops anymore at the wages they were paying.

I don't know why you conflate my conversation with calling all Mexicans rapist and drug dealers, most americans don't feel that way and I find that offensive when you direct that at me.

I was referring to Trump's use of that characterization in his campaign kickoff speech. I find it hard to believe you weren't aware of that.

Liz Warren is not about tax reform she's about socialism. We are 22 trillion dollars in debt, so when I hear single payer system, eliminate college debt, child care for all, reparations for past sins, wealth distribution, it's all pie in the sky aimed at getting liberal votes. She can't do any of that stuff, only congress can do it, all she can do is lobby and sign the bill into law ( if president of course ).

And here we have the endgame of Republican economic policy. Cut taxes on the rich a little more every year for 35 years, and now that we're up to our eyeballs in debt as a direct result of that, it's "gee, we can't afford health care, affordable education, etc." when the rest of the civilized world easily can. How do they do it? The rich pay their fair share, that's how. It's only "socialism" in the same way that clean streets, maintained sidewalks, the police force and the interstate highway system are socialism.

Biden going after Anita Hill now, in an attempt to apologize is just despicable, what a phony!!!!!!

Believe it or not, I agree completely. He should have apologized to her decades ago or, better yet, not treated her like that in the first place.

 

[BotanyBoy]

And here we have the endgame of Republican economic policy. Cut taxes on the rich a little more every year for 35 years, and now that we're up to our eyeballs in debt as a direct result of that, it's "gee, we can't afford health care, affordable education, etc." when the rest of the civilized world easily can. How do they do it? The rich pay their fair share, that's how. It's only "socialism" in the same way that clean streets, maintained sidewalks, the police force and the interstate highway system are socialism.

LOL what an insane world view......how much crack do you smoke every day?

 

[Dumpington]

!

YDB95 writes: "That had a lot more to do with Dukakis being a wimp than with Reagan's popularity (which was nothing to write home about in 1988)."

I'm sorry, but MOST men in the modern Democratic Party are wimpy - it's kind of a prerequisite - you pretty much HAVE to be wimpy nowadays for liberals to accept your "white privilege!"

Meanwhile, with President Reagan's help, Vice President George H.W. Bush would have EASILY defeated ANY Democrat challenger he faced in 1988. And Bush was NO Reagan! Not even close!

"McCain was always a darling of the media. That's why he got away with rebranding himself as a maverick when really he was a fairly down the line conservative vote."

As long as Senator McCain was attacking his fellow Republicans he remained a "darling of the media" - but immediately after winning the G.O.P.'s 2008 presidential nomination that same media turned overwhelmingly against him, and nobody in the Republican Party was surprised except for McCain himself! He didn't realize that now that he was facing the REAL media darling (Barack Obama) they were now going to trash him unmercifully!

"Including the six times Trump got bailed out when he declared bankruptcy? You've got a point there - that was certainly a giveaway to someone who didn't deserve it."

Donald Trump understands how a business works, how to meet a payroll, and how to create jobs! Barack Obama understood NONE of that! Who can ever forget President Obama's stupid-ass remarks about manufacturing jobs NEVER coming back to the United States - "What are you going to do? Wave a magic wand?" - until President Trump went and actually brought them back

(about Joe Biden): "Believe it or not, I agree completely. He should have apologized to her decades ago or, better yet, not treated her like that in the first place."

Former V.P. Joe Biden is a TERRIBLE presidential candidate, but he's probably the best hope that the Democrats have against Trump, as their other candidates are all infinitely worse! Biden's 1988 presidential run ended almost before it started, when in September 1987, it was discovered that he'd been plagiarizing speeches by British politician Neil Kinnock. His 2008 presidential campaign fared little better, with Joe dropping out after the Iowa caucuses (January 3, 2008), following a fifth place finish in which he won only one percent of the vote! Trump will STOMP him if he becomes the Democratic Party candidate!

 

[YDB95]

LOL what an insane world view......how much crack do you smoke every day?

I note without surprise that you don't even try to defeat my argument.

YDB95 writes: "That had a lot more to do with Dukakis being a wimp than with Reagan's popularity (which was nothing to write home about in 1988)."

I'm sorry, but MOST men in the modern Democratic Party are wimpy - it's kind of a prerequisite - you pretty much HAVE to be wimpy nowadays for liberals to accept your "white privilege!"

By your definition, probably so. By your definition.

Meanwhile, with President Reagan's help, Vice President George H.W. Bush would have EASILY defeated ANY Democrat challenger he faced in 1988. And Bush was NO Reagan! Not even close!

The first thing you learn in the study of history is that you can NEVER tell what "would have happened". What we do know for sure is that Reagan's approval ratings were in the 48-53% range in 1988. Not terrible, but certainly not anything like you're implying.

"McCain was always a darling of the media. That's why he got away with rebranding himself as a maverick when really he was a fairly down the line conservative vote."

As long as Senator McCain was attacking his fellow Republicans he remained a "darling of the media" - but immediately after winning the G.O.P.'s 2008 presidential nomination that same media turned overwhelmingly against him, and nobody in the Republican Party was surprised except for McCain himself! He didn't realize that now that he was facing the REAL media darling (Barack Obama) they were now going to trash him unmercifully!

Did they "trash him unmercifully", or did they tell the truth about his record and his platform? Republicans have a bad habit of mistaking the latter for the former. It's like Harry Truman said: "I don't give 'em hell, I tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell."

"Including the six times Trump got bailed out when he declared bankruptcy? You've got a point there - that was certainly a giveaway to someone who didn't deserve it."

Donald Trump understands how a business works, how to meet a payroll, and how to create jobs!

Okay, now I'm officially persuaded that you know nothing whatsoever about his record. And I'm not surprised.

Barack Obama understood NONE of that! Who can ever forget President Obama's stupid-ass remarks about manufacturing jobs NEVER coming back to the United States - "What are you going to do? Wave a magic wand?" - until President Trump went and actually brought them back

No, he didn't. He said he did and people like you fell for it. That's quite different.

(about Joe Biden): "Believe it or not, I agree completely. He should have apologized to her decades ago or, better yet, not treated her like that in the first place."

Former V.P. Joe Biden is a TERRIBLE presidential candidate, but he's probably the best hope that the Democrats have against Trump, as their other candidates are all infinitely worse!

Let's at least get one thing straight here, Dumpington: your view on who the best or worst Democratic candidates might be has no credibility whatsoever. (And before you say it, sure, you could probably say the same about me regarding the Republicans - but you don't see me pontificating on who their best nominee for anything would be.)

Biden's 1988 presidential run ended almost before it started, when in September 1987, it was discovered that he'd been plagiarizing speeches by British politician Neil Kinnock. His 2008 presidential campaign fared little better, with Joe dropping out after the Iowa caucuses (January 3, 2008), following a fifth place finish in which he won only one percent of the vote! Trump will STOMP him if he becomes the Democratic Party candidate!

I wouldn't be so sure. While I don't support him, he did run up a great track record as Obama's VP and he does have a knack for appealing to some of the groups where the Dems need to shore up their support if they're going to beat Trump.

 

[SissySalina]

You do understand that the States can change the way the Electoral College works if they want to. They can choose for the representatives to be proportioned or all based on the popular vote and the States can hold the representatives binding to the popular vote. You do understand that it is the political parties that do not want to change this in order to hold their power, correct?